Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Barbranda Wall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00664-LMB-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999223213].. [13-1087, 13-1365]

Appeal: 13-1087

Doc: 77

Filed: 10/22/2013

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1087

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BARBRANDA WALLS,
Defendant – Appellant.

No. 13-1365

WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BARBRANDA WALLS,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00664-LMB-IDD)

Submitted:

September 5, 2013

Decided:

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

October 22, 2013

Appeal: 13-1087

Doc: 77

Filed: 10/22/2013

Pg: 2 of 6

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry T. Spikes, Sr., Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Alison
W. Feehan, Craig B. Young, KUTAK ROCK, LLP, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1087

Doc: 77

Filed: 10/22/2013

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Wells

Fargo

Bank,

N.A.

brought

this

lawsuit

against

Barbranda Walls to determine her liability under a promissory
note. In separate orders, the district court (1) granted Wells
Fargo’s

motion

for

summary

judgment,

(2)

denied

Walls’

subsequent motion to extend discovery and to extend the time to
file a written opposition to the summary judgment motion, (3)
denied Walls’ motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment
order, and (4) granted Wells Fargo’s motion for attorneys’ fees
and

costs.

Walls

now

appeals

the

summary

judgment

and

these

orders. See J.A. 312, 374 (notices of appeal). We affirm.
Regarding

Wells

Fargo’s

summary

judgment

motion,

the

district court noted that despite being given proper notice,
Walls failed to respond to the motion. Moreover, the court noted
that Walls had also failed to respond to several requests for
admissions

and

other

discovery

requests

propounded

by

Wells

Fargo. In light of Walls’ failure to respond to the requests for
admissions, the court deemed the proposed admissions admitted
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36, and it consequently found that there
were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The court
explained that the undisputed facts establish the existence of
the promissory note and debt owed by Walls, and it noted that
“Walls does not contest that she failed to make timely payments

3

Appeal: 13-1087

Doc: 77

Filed: 10/22/2013

Pg: 4 of 6

on the Note since June 2008.” J.A. 209. For these reasons, the
court granted summary judgment in Wells Fargo’s favor.
On

the

same

day

that

the

district

court

ruled

on

the

summary judgment motion, but after the court had entered its
order, Walls moved to extend discovery and to extend the time to
respond to the summary judgment motion. The court denied the
motion,

explaining:

explanation

for

“Walls

her

did

failure

not
to

offer

file

any

reasonable

initial

discovery

disclosures or to respond in any respect to plaintiff’s various
discovery requests, including a request for admissions.” J.A.
216.
Walls

then

moved

for

reconsideration

of

the

summary

judgment order. The district court denied this motion, noting
again

that

Walls

“still

fail[ed]

to

offer

any

reasonable

explanation for her failure to timely file discovery disclosures
or responses to discovery requests.” J.A. 225.
After
Fargo

prevailing

moved

for

on

its

attorneys’

summary
fees

and

judgment
costs.

motion,
In

a

Wells

lengthy

memorandum opinion and accompanying order, see J.A. 354-373, the
district court found that the loan documents signed by Walls
provide a contractual foundation for Wells Fargo’s request, and
it then considered the request under Barber v. Kimbrell’s, Inc.,
577 F.2d 216 (4th Cir. 1978), which establishes a multi-factor
analysis for assessing the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees.
4

Appeal: 13-1087

Doc: 77

Filed: 10/22/2013

Pg: 5 of 6

The court explained in detail its analysis of the fee request.
Among many other things, the court noted that Walls’ position on
the request for fees and costs “is meritless,” and it observed
that

“the

record

reflects

that

[her]

unreasonably

litigious

conduct has magnified the costs of litigation in this District
and elsewhere by complicating what would otherwise have been a
standard mortgage default case.” J.A. 362-63. Ultimately, the
court found that Wells Fargo was entitled to reimbursement of
fees and costs in the amount of $251,624.08.
On appeal, Walls raises numerous issues. We have carefully
reviewed her arguments and the challenged orders in light of the
appropriate

legal

standards.

See

generally

Greater

Baltimore

Ctr. for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, 721 F.3d 264, 283 (4th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (summary
judgment); Southern Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc.
v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 186 (4th Cir.
2013) (attorneys’ fees); Nader v. Blair, 549 F.3d 953, 958-59
(4th

Cir.

district

2008)
court

(extension
correctly

of

discovery).

granted

summary

In

our

view,

judgment

in

the

Wells

Fargo’s favor based on the record presented, and it did not
abuse

its

discretion

in

denying

Walls’

post-summary

judgment

motions and awarding Wells Fargo its fees and costs. Walls has
failed

to

establish

any

basis

orders or the judgment.
5

to

warrant

setting

aside

the

Appeal: 13-1087

Doc: 77

Accordingly,

Filed: 10/22/2013

we

affirm.

Pg: 6 of 6

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

6